Harold B. Dorman v. United States
435 F.2d 385, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9785, 140 U.S. App. D.C. 313 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a suspect's home for the purpose of making an arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if justified by exigent circumstances, which are evaluated using a multi-factor reasonableness test.
Facts:
- At approximately 6:00 p.m. on a Friday, four armed men, including Harold B. Dorman, robbed Carl's Men's Shop.
- During the robbery, Dorman took a blue sharkskin suit, and the robbers brandished weapons, fired a shot, and bound the victims.
- Police investigating the crime scene found Dorman's monthly probation report, which contained his name and address.
- By 8:30 p.m., three eyewitnesses had positively identified Dorman from a photograph as one of the robbers.
- A police detective began preparing an application for an arrest warrant, but was advised by an Assistant U.S. Attorney that no magistrate was available to issue one.
- At approximately 10:20 p.m., police went to Dorman's home address and knocked, announcing their identity.
- After Dorman's mother answered and said he was not there, police heard a noise inside, entered the apartment without consent, and began searching for him.
- While looking for Dorman inside a closet, an officer saw and seized the stolen blue sharkskin suit, which was in plain view.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold B. Dorman was tried and convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Dorman, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed Dorman's conviction.
- The United States, as appellee, petitioned for a rehearing en banc, which the full Court of Appeals granted.
- The en banc court then remanded the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing on the specific issue of the failure to obtain a warrant before rendering its decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless, unconsented, non-forcible entry into a suspect's home at night to make a felony arrest, several hours after the crime, violate the Fourth Amendment when a magistrate was not readily available?
Opinions:
Majority - Leventhal
No, the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment. While warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable, an exception exists for 'exigent circumstances' or 'urgent need.' The court established a seven-factor test to determine if such circumstances exist: (1) a grave offense is involved, especially a crime of violence; (2) the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause; (4) strong reason to believe the suspect is on the premises; (5) likelihood of escape if not swiftly apprehended; (6) the entry is peaceable; and (7) the time of entry. Applying these factors, the court found the police action reasonable. The crime was a violent armed robbery, Dorman was armed, probable cause was exceptionally strong, it was reasonable to believe he was home at 10:20 p.m., and he might flee upon realizing his probation papers were lost. The unavailability of a magistrate contributed to the urgency, making the delay of obtaining a warrant unreasonable under these specific circumstances.
Concurring - Bazelon
This opinion concurs only in the result, not the reasoning. The Fourth Amendment question need not be reached because any error in admitting the suit into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence implicating Dorman, such as the probation papers left at the scene and multiple eyewitness identifications, was so overwhelming that the conviction would have been certain even without the suit. This overwhelming evidence of guilt makes any potential constitutional error in the search harmless.
Dissenting - J. Skelly Wright
Yes, the warrantless entry did violate the Fourth Amendment. The circumstances were not sufficiently exigent to justify a warrantless nighttime entry into a home. The four-hour delay between the crime and the police entry distinguishes this case from 'hot pursuit' scenarios like Warden v. Hayden. The police could have simply staked out the apartment while diligently seeking a warrant from one of the many other judicial officers who were available. The claim that no judge could be found is not credible given the short time spent looking. The entry violated the core Fourth Amendment protection of privacy in the home, and the evidence should have been suppressed. The conviction should only be affirmed on the grounds of harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
Analysis:
This case is significant for creating the 'Dorman factors,' a widely adopted analytical framework for evaluating whether exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into a home to make an arrest. The decision provides a structured, albeit flexible, test for a constitutionally sensitive police action, moving beyond a vague 'urgent need' standard. It attempts to balance the sanctity of the home against the practical necessities of law enforcement in pursuing potentially dangerous felons. The multi-factor approach has heavily influenced subsequent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding warrantless arrests in private residences.
